BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
E.A. 12 of 2011 in CC 2 of 2010
Between
Kuchakula Surender Reddy
S/o late K. kantha Reddy
Rep. by GPA K. Raj Kumar Reddy
S/o K. Surender Reddy
R/o Flat no. 505, Ashkchandra Enclave,
Lakdi-ka-pul, Hyderabad. .. Petitioner/D. Hr/complainant
And
- Sikhara Constructions
Flat no. 102, Sphinix Apartments
Street no. 1, Himayathnagar,
Hyderabad
Rep. by its Managing partner
K. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy
- K. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy
S/o late K. Kista Reddy
Business, R/o Flat no. 301,
Start Homes, Domalguda
-
- R. Narasimha Reddy
S/o R. Satyanarayana Reddy
Flat no. 102, Sphinix Apartments,
Street no.1,. Himayathnagar
Hyderabad .. Respondents/J.Drs/opposite parties
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. K. Surender Reddy (PIP)
Counsel for the Respondents : M/s. S. Ramachandra Prasad for R-3
E.A. 13 of 2011 in CC 3 of 2010
Between
K. Sunitha,
W/o K. Rajkumar Reddy
R/o Flat no. 505, Ashkchandra Enclave,
Lakdi-ka-pul, Hyderabad. .. Petitioner/D. Hr/complainant
And
- Sikhara Constructions
Flat no. 102, Sphinix Apartments
Street no. 1, Himayathnagar,
Hyderabad
Rep. by its Managing partner
K. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy
- K. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy
S/o late K. Kista Reddy
Business, R/o Flat no. 301,
Start Homes, Domalguda
-
- R. Narasimha Reddy
S/o R. Satyanarayana Reddy
Flat no. 102, Sphinix Apartments,
Street no.1,. Himayathnagar
Hyderabad .. Respondents/J.Drs/opposite parties
Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms. K. Sunitha (PIP)
Counsel for the Respondents : M/s. S. Ramachandra Prasad for R-3.
QUORUM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT
AND
SRI R. LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY,
TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN
Oral Order : ( As per Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao , Hon’ble Member )
****
01 The complainants have filed the petitions seeking for punishment of the respondents on the premise of their failure to comply with the orders dated 09.03.2011 passed by this Commission in C.C. No 2 of 2010 and CC. 3 of 2010. This Commission allowed the complaints by order dated 09.03.2011 and passed the following order
CC. 2 OF 2010 :
“ the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to accept the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and opposite parties shall deliver flat no. 102 to the complainant with all required amenities as agreed upon before 01.09.2011 as evidence under Ex. B6, reiterating the genuineness or correctness of Ex. B6, Registered sale deed, cannot be agitated before this Commission and the aggrieved party should approach the Civil court. Opposite parties 1 to 3 shall also pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for having delayed the construction, ( as per the original schedule) together with costs of Rs.5,000/-. Complaint against opposite parties 4 to 7 is dismissed without costs “.
CC. 3 OF 2010 :
“ the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to accept the balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and opposite parties 1 to 3 shall deliver flat no. 504 to the complainant with all required amenities as agreed upon before 01.09.2011 as evidence under sale .deed. We reiterate that the genuineness or correctness of Ex. B6, which is a registered document, cannot be agitated before this Commission and the aggrieved party should approach the Civil court. Opposite parties 1 to 3 shall also pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for having delayed the construction, ( as per the original schedule) together with costs of Rs.5,000/-. Complaint against opposite parties 4 to 7 is dismissed without costs “.
2. Aggrieved by the orders, the third respondent filed appeals, FA No. 342-343 of 2011 before the Hon’ble National Commission which were dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 31.05.2012. The Writ Petition in FA 16084 of 2012 filed by the third respondent was also dismissed as withdrawn by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. vide its order dated 24.09.2012. Thereafter the first respondent received Rs.2,00,000/- dated 07.07.2011 and Rs.10,00,000/- dated 07.07.2011 from the petitioner towards part payment of sale consideration. This Commission in EA 12 of 2011 and EA 13 of 2011 filed by the complainants held that since the Ops 1 & 2 agreed to deliver the flats along with OP.3 and directed the Ops 1 to 3 to hand over possession of the flat on 13.04.2012 and fixed the date on 16.04.2012 for report of compliance, and for taking further steps in the matter. The first respondent vide his letter dated 04.11.2011expressed his inability to complete the construction work.
3. The petitioner has filed written submissions.
4. The respondent no. 2 filed memo dated 04.11.2011 stating that they delivered possession of the Flat to the petitioner and paid costs to him. The respondents 1 and 2 along with respondent no. 3 were directed to deliver possession of the Flat and hand over possession letter to the petitioner. This Commission by order dated 08.02.2013 observed that “ the respondents delivered possession of the semi finished flat to the petitioner and so far as handing over of possession letter is concerned, it was observed that the counsel for the petitioner represented that possession letter was handed over by respondent no. 1 and 2 and the respondent no. 3 refused to issue the possession letter.
5. The point for consideration is whether the respondents disobeyed the order of this Commission?
6. The appeals filed by the third respondent in FA 342 -343 of 2011 before the National Commission and the Writ petition in FA 16084 of 2012 before the Hon’ble High Court of A. P. were dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner filed possession letters dated 04.11.2011 in CC 2 of 2010 and CC 3 of 201 and the contents of the same are extracted below :
CC 2 of 2010 :
‘ You have filed complaint in CC No. 02/2010 before the APSCDRC, Hyderabad and obtained an order directing our firm and us to complete the construction of flat no. 102 in 1st floor H No. 3-6-369/22A, Street no.1, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad and to deliver the same with amenities and also to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- with costs of Rs.5,000/-.
Due to various reasons including the dispute with the partner we could not complete the construction of the above flat and provide the amenities. However, we are herewith delivering the flat incomplete position and requesting you to complete the balance works and take the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- that was deposited by you in the above complaint and we will undertake to pay the deficit amount if any for completion of the balance works and amenities to the above flat.
We are herewith enclosing the cost of Rs.5,000/- ordered by the State Commission. “
CC 3 of 2010 :
‘ You have filed complaint in CC No. 03/2010 before the APSCDRC, Hyderabad and obtained an order directing our firm and us to complete the construction of flat no. 504 in 5th floor H No. 3-6-369/22A, Street no.1, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad and to deliver the same with amenities and also to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- with costs of Rs.5,000/-.
Due to various reasons including the dispute with the partner we could not complete the construction of the above flat and provide the amenities. However, we are herewith delivering the flat incomplete position and requesting you to complete the balance works and take the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- that was deposited by you in the above complaint and we will undertake to pay the deficit amount if any for completion of the balance works and amenities to the above flat.
We are herewith enclosing the cost of Rs.5,000/- ordered by the State Commission. “
7 The petitioners had taken back the amounts deposited by them from the Commission and they had completed the pending construction of the flats. They have sought for punishment of the respondent no. 3 on the premise that the respondent no. 3 had not given possession letter to them and requested to reopen the main complaint and issue warrant against Opposite party no.3.
8. We had given our attention to the entire set of facts subsequent to the order passed by this Commission on 09.03.2011. The respondents no. 1 and 2 delivered possession of the flat whereon the petitioners completed the pending construction work of their respective flats. Having been inducted into possession of the flats, the petitioners had been given possession letters by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 on 4.11.2011. The respondent no. 1 is a partnership firm of which the respondent no. 2 and 3 are the partners and the respondent no. 1 being a partnership firm handed over possession letters of the flats to the petitioners. The possession letter issued by the respondent no. 1 is deemed to have been issued by the respondent no. 2 and 3 as well for the reason that the respondent no. 1 is a partnership firm and the act of the respondent no. 1 would bind all its partners viz., the respondents no.2 and 3. Thus, we hold the orders dated 09.03.2011 passed by this Commission had been complied with. We do not see any disobedience on the part of the respondent no. 1 and 2 or the respondent no. 3 to the orders passed by his Commission and as such the petitions are liable to be dismissed.
9. In the result, the petitions are dismissed. There shall be no separate order as to costs.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER
DATED : 24.07.2014.
